At this point the problem occurs within our understanding; it is a paradox that is because of the relation of finite numbers and infinite numbers. There, right there, those five final words illustrates our utter lack of coherency, because what does it mean to say an infinite “number”, and is it any different than infinity itself? And aren’t finite numbers and rational expressions shorthand as well, because 676 is also …000000000676.0000000000… too, correct? And in that sense, all numbers are infinite by disregard to omission. This slight improvement only leaves open the true value of zero, which could simply be shorthand for a one followed by a multitude of zeroes that we can’t count (or really just the reverse in decimal situations) but mask the unit of actual value. And zero in all of those situations really can be anything, even “W” or pi. “0” is self-shorthand also when given thought; it really can be any number of zeroes without changing its value. And remember, this isn’t my plunging into the mysteries of symbolism and language; it is an attempt to realize the truth about numbers, in their natural state, whatever that might possibly be. Numbers, perhaps like colors, don’t have potential realization without the physical or symbolic alter egos; and yet, in those strange instances where colors can be tasted, and touch gets caught up in your visual perceptions, and what you hear is what you smell (I don’t want a whiff of yodeling, thank you), all reason is denied, and no matter what you say, these ideas come forth from their dimensions and take on a much fuller identity. Those experiences which are few and far between, although mostly brief and confounding, take the argument to a whole different battleground, like a parallel universe or something.

I do suppose that it could simply be the nature of interpretation, that we simply interpret truth and logic as real and indefatigable concepts: but if even these things can be thrown aside as casting off an article of clothing, what then happens when the fashion changes? Indeed, while logic tells us and the world tells us that nothing is sacred, nothing indeed! In fact, universes can live and thrive off of the titles of i’s, and then switch to yodeling as a central theme (god help us). But this, while an interesting idea, has already been allowed by logic, and so it seems that it is as inescapable as infinity, because we are all an immovable part of it, and always an infinite distance away from the boundary between sanity and happiness (the sad, yet funny, sadly humorous truth is that some of us {too few of us} are sane, and some of us {again too few in number} are happy, most neither, but none both; it really is a crying shame.). And yet, as logical as it is, it contradicts itself (just review what I’ve written) but only on the basis of being logical; so, it (like zero) exists to deny its existence.

Or, more accurately, a basis for proof of its existence: that would be the same as saying that all evidence is circumstantial, which is a perfectly logical conclusion. When one considers the magnitude of reality, and the utter reliance on quantum mechanics to produce information, all that we have recorded is only what was meant to be recorded, the numbers have been consistent because of the nature of order. But I repeat myself: order is only a more subtle and consistent way of understanding chaos because out of an infinite number of dice rolls, the same numbers can and will repeat. Like the repetition of 3, 4, 6, consistently, the force of gravity in any situation has been randomly chosen to be as it is per gram of mass and unit of distance, and has been always the same because of the random repetition of certain patterns. Entropy is a law that is the prime example of what I mean: it is really just an algorithm of the probabilities of achieving a low-entropic state, which is what we are. In fact, all of the galactic, solar, and planetary systems (orbiting, weather, biological and others) are low entropy, but are continuing to fall into mayhem and discord because it is more likely to happen. And notice that there is no such thing as a non-entropic state, and thus we are all subject to random accidents, wars, corruption, and global warming; it is the slightly chaotic doomed to fall into a pit of extreme chaos, that is the basics for the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Entropy is the embodiment of the reality of order, but that merely illustrates the conundrum: how do we trust something which is subject to change, and indeed has changed, in order for our being to occur? That trust should enter the argument is vital, and we really can only go with what has been established, for to take that stance undermines itself, but this has already been established of our existence itself, so why not? I deeply fear that we may not be able to know everything, and then, functioning under the hypothesis that there is always knowledge and wisdom ad infinitum, we may never know anything at all; only thinking, and only being.